1. How did the Ottomans treat non-Muslims?
The Ottomans didn't actually treat non-Muslims unfairly. However, the non-Muslims had to pay taxes, unlike the Muslims. In return, however, the non-Muslims did not have to serve the army. The Muslims had to serve the army, but they did not need to pay taxes.
2. What were Suleyman's major accomplishments?
Suleyman's major accomplishments included conquering parts of southeastern Europe, the whole eastern Mediterranean Sea, and parts of North Africa. Suleyman ruled his empire with a structured government, including a group of elite soldiers that were trained to fight for the sultan.
3. Despite their brilliant rule, what critical mistake did Suleiman and Shah Abbas make?
Suleiman and Shah Abbas both brilliantly ruled their empire, but the problem that they made was that they both killed their talented sons because they were afraid that their sons were going to take away their power. This was a critical mistake because the sons were talented, and since they were killed, who was going to rule the empire if the emperors died?
4. What evidence of cultural blending can you find in Akbar's rule?
During Akbar's rule, Urdu was created, a language spoken by soldiers in Akbar's camp, and it was a mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Hindi. This is evidence of cultural blending that I could fin in Akbar's rule because Urdu was a mixture of different languages instead of one language.
5. How did Akbar's successors contribute to the end of the Mughal Empire?
Jahangir's successor, Shah Jahan, chose not to follow Akbar's way of religious toleration. He was a patron of arts, and so he built many beautiful buildings, which increased the taxes the people had to pay. Aurangzeb, the son of Shah Jahan, ruled withharsh laws. Aurangzeb punished Hindus, destroyed Hindu temples, and fought battles against the Sikhs. After the death of Aurangzeb, the empire collapsed.
September 9, 2011
Erika K.
1. What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
The Scientific Revolution was caused by different theories from scientists that contradicted against the Christian teachings. Works published by scholars contradicted and challenged the thinkers of the Church, which was a new way of thinking. The geocentric theory was the idea that Earth was the center of the solar system and the planets orbited around the Earth. Different discoveries led to the Scientific Revolution.
2. Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
The authorities at that time tend to reject new ideas because that would mean what they taught the people about religion would be incorrect. Why that would be bad is because the people might start to question whether if the Christian teachings taught by the Church is correct or incorrect, which wold cause trouble for the Church.
3. Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
I don't agree with Galileo's actions during his trial. Although I have not been sent to Court, but I still believe that he shouldn't have given into the Church's threats and should have stayed stubborn and stand up for his beliefs. He was under house arrest after the false confession, so there would be no point in trying to survive, anyway. He was never a free man after that trial, so I believe that he should have stayed obstinate and stand up for his beliefs and discoveries.
4. Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Nicolaus Copernicus - proposed that the solar system is heliocentric, saying that Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun instead of the Earth.
Galileo Galilei - invented the telescope and his findings supported the theories of Copernicus.
Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - helped to develop the scientific method.
Isaac Newton - created the theory of the law of Universal gravitation.
Andreas Vesalius - dissected human corpses
Robert Boyle - challenged Aristotle's idea of the Earth consisting of only four elements. He also contributed to Boyle's law, which stated how the volume, temperature, and pressure of gas affect each other.
5. Explain the significance of these terms: - Geocentric Theory
The Church and other authorities believed that the solar system was geocentric, which meant that the Earth was the center and all other planets and starts revolved around Earth. However, it was soon proven wrong.
- Heliocentric Theory
The Heliocentric Theory challenged the Geocentric Theory, which was a big thing because that was how the people started questioning the teachings of the Church and whether if what they were teaching was correct or not.
- Scientific Revolution
The Scientific Revolution was when scientists published books that challenged the teachings of the authorities, which included the Church. Since the people were taught to only believe what the Church taught them, it was a big deal when other theories contradicted and challenged them.
- Scientific method
The Scientific method was important because that method is a logical way of hypothesizing and doing experiments. It starts with an inquiry, or question, and then it goes on with hypothesizing and experimenting it. This is important because it helped many scientists and it's still used today, which means that it's been very useful to scientists.
August 31, 2011
Erika K.
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
I think Europe gains dominance because they started to think independently. Ever since they found out that the universe was heliocentric, they started questioning the Church. If the Bible was wrong, then that meant what the people were taught by the Church was fallacious the whole time. In the Middle Ages, the Church was very powerful. Now that they were proven wrong, there was a struggle. The people separated from the Church and learned about new things that were prohibited from the Church. There were new innovations and discoveries made. Since the Europeans weren't tied down by religion, they started to widen the interest of politics, science, arts, and literature. They believed that all men and women should be educated.
m
August 28, 2011
Erika K.
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
With the help of overseas trade, the northern part of Italy became more developed and eventually became full of cities, while other parts of Europe were still urban. Northern Italy had large city-states, and many people often exchange ideas in cities. Since Italy had the large cities, the exchange and sharing of ideas took place. Since different ideas were shared among the people, that helped to create the Renaissance.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
I think the Medici family isn't a malicious family. I think to have their library available to the public was a very kind action. Not only was Lorenzo the Magnificent a patron of the arts, but he was also a dictator after his grandfather died. From how the textbook describes them, I think the Medici family didn't rule Florence in contemptible way. I think that from the way they are described, many of the people liked them.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
During the Medieval times, the Church had supreme power. The arts were mainly focused on religious icons. The education, art, and other things were to agree with the Christian teachings, and because of that, Humanism influenced the Renaissance greatly. People focused more on achievements and human potential rather than the supernatural. Humanism helped secularize education and art.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
They wanted to show their importance to the public by having artists draw their portraits and have them donated in public squares. To make that happen, however, they would have to be patrons of the arts. That's why the church leaders and wealthy merchants supported the arts financially, to have their portraits drawn.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
Both upper-class Renaissance men and women were expected to know the classics and be beautiful/charming. However, the men had to excel in many different fields. Not only must they excel academics, they must be good at dancing and art, as well. Women, on the other hand, weren't expected to draw, but they had to inspire it. They were also not expected to seek fame, and they had little influence in politics.
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
The qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual. In the document under the Renaissance Man, the gist of it was mainly about what the "perfect" man should know. Since these qualities are only described for an individual, it doesn't emphasize the group. The document under the Renaissance Woman is most likely a letter for the painter Leonardo da Vinci. The letter is mainly about asking the painter to keep his promise by having their portraits (the women) converted into another figure. However, I think that the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance woman seem to emphasize the group. The women were expected to be smart and charming, but besides that, they weren't expected to do anything. They weren't expected to seek fame and create art, which was something important in the Renaissance. "But because this would be almost impossible, since you are unable to come here, we beg you to keep your promise by converting our portrait into another figure, which would be still more acceptable for us;" is part of the letter, and this sentence gives me the impression that since the women weren't expected to draw, they really want the portraits that were drawn by the famous painter. Since they weren't expected to do much, I think the qualities for the ideal Renaissance woman seem to emphasize the group.
APPARTS - Hamel's Journal
August 17, 2011
Erika K.
heretical - something that is contrary to what is believed to be generally accepted
faggot - a bundle of sticks
Eucharist - a religious ceremony in which people eat bread and wine
abstain - to refrain from doing something
penance - punishment
beseeching - to implore
source - the origin of something (esp. information)
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogflesh was carrying around a bundle of sticks, a faggot, and he climbed up on a platform to say out a statement that the people of the Church has written for him. The statement says that he's being punished for heretical beliefs, and that everyone should refrain from doing the same. Hogflesh had to repeat this for a few days. The historian's main point is that those who have been caught by the Church for heretical beliefs or anything against their practices and beliefs, then they would be severely punished.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
The roles of a historian are being a record keeper, interpreter, detective, analyst, judge, political campaigner, philosopher, synthesizer, and storyteller. I agree with his assumptions because historians do dig up for evidence and piece all of them together like a jigsaw puzzle. In order to understand and interpret their findings, they must think and ask questions about it first.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
Fidelity means faithfulness, and so when it said “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity”, it meant that the historians didn’t ignore what other historians came up with about things relative to what their interpreting right now. For example, if a person came up with something that contradicts another theory someone else came up with, then the person wouldn’t ignore that theory just because it contradicts his/her own. She/he would stick to the facts.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
A single event could be interpreted in more than one way because of the different ways people could see it. Someone could interpret a single event by using the surrounding facts (such as the state of the surroundings if he/she is present during the actual event) or interpret things through biased eyes. For example, those who lost in a game could have said that they lost only by a little, while the winner could’ve said that they won by far.
When I was around 10 years old, I argued with my mother about ice cream. My father bought us a tub of our favorite ice cream, but he didn’t specifically say who it was for. Being the cutest daughter (in my eyes back then), I ate the whole gallon. In my perspective, my father bought his beautiful daughter her favorite ice cream and ate it when she was hungry. However, in the eyes of my mother, I would be the selfish little devil who ate her ice cream. In someone else’s perspective, the ice cream could’ve been for both of us and we were both selfish to think that it was entirely theirs.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
It isn’t possible for a historian to be completely objective because that would mean that he/she wouldn’t be influenced by their own personal feelings and opinions. How a historian perceives a certain event would most likely be biased in its own way. For example, the ice cream story stated in question four was basically a biased story. I saw things in my own way, being impacted by my own personal feelings.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
The problem about practicing subjective history is that the facts that were based on personal opinions would be hard to eliminate in the history. In other words, people might not know which ones are the facts and which ones are the biased opinions. Subjective history can be beneficial by introducing some of the different perspectives one can view. It makes sense for me to remember the even the way I did because I was the one who was perfectly sure about what happened and it left an impression, and the same goes for my mother. This tells us that history can be remembered through biased views and leave an impression on those who hear or think about it.
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Every historian is “a storyteller” because they tell an audience or a person about their story or theories. If all historians are storytellers and there are countless versions of every story, we can still trust historians. Even though one can feel doubtful about all these different stories, but they are still different perspectives and views.
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
I haven’t thought about how historians write and think about history in depth, but this reading did make me think about it and it made me feel that having different perspectives can even makes the slightest changes big. Even though I may have not assumed that every single word relative to history in newspaper articles or non-fictional books were true, I still did believe in it, not thinking about biased views of the historian. Even though I don’t want to, I do feel that I will be a bit doubtful when reading historical texts, but I think I will somehow manage to find a way around it.
August 12th 2011
Erika K.
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
It's essential to understand culture to understand history because, first of all, historic and ancient texts regarding the history of the world, including texts describing the inhabitants of specific countries, are written about different occurrences that are momentous to history or describe the traditions and other detailed information about the country. To understand the explanation behind the actions, we must know their culture. Grasping the culture, or understanding their beliefs and social customs would simplify the question about the reasons for their actions or their line of thought. Sometimes, history can be important to understand culture. For example, why are Koreans xenophobic? To understand that, we must look at the history of Korea to know the reason behind it. Many studies say that it's the result of being invaded a lot in the past. Korea hasn't been invaded by other foreign countries just once, it has been invaded quite a lot of times. After being invaded a lot of times, the people started becoming defensive against other people.
Another reason why it's significant to understand culture when trying to understand history is because each individual have their own beliefs and culture. Even the people who are writing down the history and writing books about it have their own perspectives and point of views. Since they have their own culture and perspective, they are likely to write in a biased way. It may not seem like it, but there is a chance it could be a bit opinionated.
Max, Hyun Seok, William, Erika
What is Culture?
Culture is a way of life including different traditions, beliefs, environment, language, and lifestyle.
Erika's Page ~:)
February 1, 2012
Erika K.
Unit IV Erika K.
October 26, 2011
Erika K.
Unit III Erika K.
October 11, 2011
Erika K.
European Explorations Erika G
October 5, 2011
Erika
China A Missed Opportunity Erika Block G
September 29, 2011
Erika K.
Erika Kim 9G Islamic Paragraph
September 27, 2011
Erika K.
Erika Kim 9G Islam
September 23, 2011
Erika K.
Erika Kim 9G Planning Information
September 23, 2011
Erika K.
1. How did the Ottomans treat non-Muslims?
The Ottomans didn't actually treat non-Muslims unfairly. However, the non-Muslims had to pay taxes, unlike the Muslims. In return, however, the non-Muslims did not have to serve the army. The Muslims had to serve the army, but they did not need to pay taxes.
2. What were Suleyman's major accomplishments?
Suleyman's major accomplishments included conquering parts of southeastern Europe, the whole eastern Mediterranean Sea, and parts of North Africa. Suleyman ruled his empire with a structured government, including a group of elite soldiers that were trained to fight for the sultan.
3. Despite their brilliant rule, what critical mistake did Suleiman and Shah Abbas make?
Suleiman and Shah Abbas both brilliantly ruled their empire, but the problem that they made was that they both killed their talented sons because they were afraid that their sons were going to take away their power. This was a critical mistake because the sons were talented, and since they were killed, who was going to rule the empire if the emperors died?
4. What evidence of cultural blending can you find in Akbar's rule?
During Akbar's rule, Urdu was created, a language spoken by soldiers in Akbar's camp, and it was a mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Hindi. This is evidence of cultural blending that I could fin in Akbar's rule because Urdu was a mixture of different languages instead of one language.
5. How did Akbar's successors contribute to the end of the Mughal Empire?
Jahangir's successor, Shah Jahan, chose not to follow Akbar's way of religious toleration. He was a patron of arts, and so he built many beautiful buildings, which increased the taxes the people had to pay. Aurangzeb, the son of Shah Jahan, ruled withharsh laws. Aurangzeb punished Hindus, destroyed Hindu temples, and fought battles against the Sikhs. After the death of Aurangzeb, the empire collapsed.
September 9, 2011
Erika K.
1. What were the CAUSES of the Scientific Revolution? Which one do you think is MOST significant AND WHY?
The Scientific Revolution was caused by different theories from scientists that contradicted against the Christian teachings. Works published by scholars contradicted and challenged the thinkers of the Church, which was a new way of thinking. The geocentric theory was the idea that Earth was the center of the solar system and the planets orbited around the Earth. Different discoveries led to the Scientific Revolution.
2. Why might those in positions of authority at the time (Church and government) tend to reject new ideas?
The authorities at that time tend to reject new ideas because that would mean what they taught the people about religion would be incorrect. Why that would be bad is because the people might start to question whether if the Christian teachings taught by the Church is correct or incorrect, which wold cause trouble for the Church.
3. Do you agree with Galileo's actions during his trial? Explain.
I don't agree with Galileo's actions during his trial. Although I have not been sent to Court, but I still believe that he shouldn't have given into the Church's threats and should have stayed stubborn and stand up for his beliefs. He was under house arrest after the false confession, so there would be no point in trying to survive, anyway. He was never a free man after that trial, so I believe that he should have stayed obstinate and stand up for his beliefs and discoveries.
4. Make a list of the major figures of this revolution in thinking and what they did.
Nicolaus Copernicus - proposed that the solar system is heliocentric, saying that Earth and the other planets revolve around the sun instead of the Earth.
Galileo Galilei - invented the telescope and his findings supported the theories of Copernicus.
Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes - helped to develop the scientific method.
Isaac Newton - created the theory of the law of Universal gravitation.
Andreas Vesalius - dissected human corpses
Robert Boyle - challenged Aristotle's idea of the Earth consisting of only four elements. He also contributed to Boyle's law, which stated how the volume, temperature, and pressure of gas affect each other.
5. Explain the significance of these terms:
- Geocentric Theory
The Church and other authorities believed that the solar system was geocentric, which meant that the Earth was the center and all other planets and starts revolved around Earth. However, it was soon proven wrong.
- Heliocentric Theory
The Heliocentric Theory challenged the Geocentric Theory, which was a big thing because that was how the people started questioning the teachings of the Church and whether if what they were teaching was correct or not.
- Scientific Revolution
The Scientific Revolution was when scientists published books that challenged the teachings of the authorities, which included the Church. Since the people were taught to only believe what the Church taught them, it was a big deal when other theories contradicted and challenged them.
- Scientific method
The Scientific method was important because that method is a logical way of hypothesizing and doing experiments. It starts with an inquiry, or question, and then it goes on with hypothesizing and experimenting it. This is important because it helped many scientists and it's still used today, which means that it's been very useful to scientists.
August 31, 2011
Erika K.
‘How did the Renaissance contribute to the opening of the mind in Europe?'
I think Europe gains dominance because they started to think independently. Ever since they found out that the universe was heliocentric, they started questioning the Church. If the Bible was wrong, then that meant what the people were taught by the Church was fallacious the whole time. In the Middle Ages, the Church was very powerful. Now that they were proven wrong, there was a struggle. The people separated from the Church and learned about new things that were prohibited from the Church. There were new innovations and discoveries made. Since the Europeans weren't tied down by religion, they started to widen the interest of politics, science, arts, and literature. They believed that all men and women should be educated.
m
August 28, 2011
Erika K.
1. How did the cities of Italy help create the Renaissance?
With the help of overseas trade, the northern part of Italy became more developed and eventually became full of cities, while other parts of Europe were still urban. Northern Italy had large city-states, and many people often exchange ideas in cities. Since Italy had the large cities, the exchange and sharing of ideas took place. Since different ideas were shared among the people, that helped to create the Renaissance.
2. What is your opinion of the Medici family?
I think the Medici family isn't a malicious family. I think to have their library available to the public was a very kind action. Not only was Lorenzo the Magnificent a patron of the arts, but he was also a dictator after his grandfather died. From how the textbook describes them, I think the Medici family didn't rule Florence in contemptible way. I think that from the way they are described, many of the people liked them.
3. How did Humanism influence Renaissance ideas?
During the Medieval times, the Church had supreme power. The arts were mainly focused on religious icons. The education, art, and other things were to agree with the Christian teachings, and because of that, Humanism influenced the Renaissance greatly. People focused more on achievements and human potential rather than the supernatural. Humanism helped secularize education and art.
4. Why did church leaders and wealthy merchants support the arts?
They wanted to show their importance to the public by having artists draw their portraits and have them donated in public squares. To make that happen, however, they would have to be patrons of the arts. That's why the church leaders and wealthy merchants supported the arts financially, to have their portraits drawn.
5. What were the similarities and differences between upper-class Renaissance men and women?
Both upper-class Renaissance men and women were expected to know the classics and be beautiful/charming. However, the men had to excel in many different fields. Not only must they excel academics, they must be good at dancing and art, as well. Women, on the other hand, weren't expected to draw, but they had to inspire it. They were also not expected to seek fame, and they had little influence in politics.
6. After reading the "Analyzing Primary Sources" box, respond to this question: Do the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual or the group? Give evidence in the documents to back up your answer!
The qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance man and woman seem to emphasize the individual. In the document under the Renaissance Man, the gist of it was mainly about what the "perfect" man should know. Since these qualities are only described for an individual, it doesn't emphasize the group. The document under the Renaissance Woman is most likely a letter for the painter Leonardo da Vinci. The letter is mainly about asking the painter to keep his promise by having their portraits (the women) converted into another figure. However, I think that the qualities called for in the ideal Renaissance woman seem to emphasize the group. The women were expected to be smart and charming, but besides that, they weren't expected to do anything. They weren't expected to seek fame and create art, which was something important in the Renaissance. "But because this would be almost impossible, since you are unable to come here, we beg you to keep your promise by converting our portrait into another figure, which would be still more acceptable for us;" is part of the letter, and this sentence gives me the impression that since the women weren't expected to draw, they really want the portraits that were drawn by the famous painter. Since they weren't expected to do much, I think the qualities for the ideal Renaissance woman seem to emphasize the group.
August 22, 2011
Erika K.
Erika's Family History Project
August 18, 2011
Erika K.
Roles of a Historian Pages Document
August 17, 2011
Erika K.
APPARTS - Hamel's Journal
August 17, 2011
Erika K.
heretical - something that is contrary to what is believed to be generally accepted
faggot - a bundle of sticks
Eucharist - a religious ceremony in which people eat bread and wine
abstain - to refrain from doing something
penance - punishment
beseeching - to implore
source - the origin of something (esp. information)
1. In section 1, Heretical Beliefs, the historian gives his account of a historical event. What is happening to Hogsflesh? What is the historian's “story” or main point of the article?
Hogflesh was carrying around a bundle of sticks, a faggot, and he climbed up on a platform to say out a statement that the people of the Church has written for him. The statement says that he's being punished for heretical beliefs, and that everyone should refrain from doing the same. Hogflesh had to repeat this for a few days. The historian's main point is that those who have been caught by the Church for heretical beliefs or anything against their practices and beliefs, then they would be severely punished.
2. What are the roles of a historian defined by John Arnold? Do you agree or disagree with his assumptions? Can you think of any other roles?
The roles of a historian are being a record keeper, interpreter, detective, analyst, judge, political campaigner, philosopher, synthesizer, and storyteller. I agree with his assumptions because historians do dig up for evidence and piece all of them together like a jigsaw puzzle. In order to understand and interpret their findings, they must think and ask questions about it first.
3. What is meant by “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity?” Remember to put your response in your own words. Why is it important to remember this when reading historical references?
Fidelity means faithfulness, and so when it said “treat(ing) their sources with fidelity”, it meant that the historians didn’t ignore what other historians came up with about things relative to what their interpreting right now. For example, if a person came up with something that contradicts another theory someone else came up with, then the person wouldn’t ignore that theory just because it contradicts his/her own. She/he would stick to the facts.
4. How can a single event be interpreted in more than one way? Can you think of an event in your life that historians could interpret with differing points of view?
A single event could be interpreted in more than one way because of the different ways people could see it. Someone could interpret a single event by using the surrounding facts (such as the state of the surroundings if he/she is present during the actual event) or interpret things through biased eyes. For example, those who lost in a game could have said that they lost only by a little, while the winner could’ve said that they won by far.
When I was around 10 years old, I argued with my mother about ice cream. My father bought us a tub of our favorite ice cream, but he didn’t specifically say who it was for. Being the cutest daughter (in my eyes back then), I ate the whole gallon. In my perspective, my father bought his beautiful daughter her favorite ice cream and ate it when she was hungry. However, in the eyes of my mother, I would be the selfish little devil who ate her ice cream. In someone else’s perspective, the ice cream could’ve been for both of us and we were both selfish to think that it was entirely theirs.
5. Talk to a family member or friend about something that happened to you both a long time ago. Examine how you both remember the incident and write about it. With that in mind, when attaching meaning to history, is it possible for a historian to be completely objective? Use examples from the incident you just discussed to reinforce your response.
It isn’t possible for a historian to be completely objective because that would mean that he/she wouldn’t be influenced by their own personal feelings and opinions. How a historian perceives a certain event would most likely be biased in its own way. For example, the ice cream story stated in question four was basically a biased story. I saw things in my own way, being impacted by my own personal feelings.
6. What problems may arise when historians practice subjective history? In what ways may subjective history be beneficial to the study of history? Think back to the incident you just discussed with your family member or friend. Why did it make sense for you to remember the event the way you did and for the other person to remember it the way he or she did? What does this tell us about history?
The problem about practicing subjective history is that the facts that were based on personal opinions would be hard to eliminate in the history. In other words, people might not know which ones are the facts and which ones are the biased opinions. Subjective history can be beneficial by introducing some of the different perspectives one can view. It makes sense for me to remember the even the way I did because I was the one who was perfectly sure about what happened and it left an impression, and the same goes for my mother. This tells us that history can be remembered through biased views and leave an impression on those who hear or think about it.
7. Why is every historian "a storyteller?" If all historians are storytellers and there are myriad versions of every story, can we trust historians? Why or why not?
Every historian is “a storyteller” because they tell an audience or a person about their story or theories. If all historians are storytellers and there are countless versions of every story, we can still trust historians. Even though one can feel doubtful about all these different stories, but they are still different perspectives and views.
8. How did your view of history and historians change based on this reading? How will you approach history now that you have explored these views?
I haven’t thought about how historians write and think about history in depth, but this reading did make me think about it and it made me feel that having different perspectives can even makes the slightest changes big. Even though I may have not assumed that every single word relative to history in newspaper articles or non-fictional books were true, I still did believe in it, not thinking about biased views of the historian. Even though I don’t want to, I do feel that I will be a bit doubtful when reading historical texts, but I think I will somehow manage to find a way around it.
August 12th 2011
Erika K.
Why is an understanding of culture necessary in order to understand history?
It's essential to understand culture to understand history because, first of all, historic and ancient texts regarding the history of the world, including texts describing the inhabitants of specific countries, are written about different occurrences that are momentous to history or describe the traditions and other detailed information about the country. To understand the explanation behind the actions, we must know their culture. Grasping the culture, or understanding their beliefs and social customs would simplify the question about the reasons for their actions or their line of thought. Sometimes, history can be important to understand culture. For example, why are Koreans xenophobic? To understand that, we must look at the history of Korea to know the reason behind it. Many studies say that it's the result of being invaded a lot in the past. Korea hasn't been invaded by other foreign countries just once, it has been invaded quite a lot of times. After being invaded a lot of times, the people started becoming defensive against other people.
Another reason why it's significant to understand culture when trying to understand history is because each individual have their own beliefs and culture. Even the people who are writing down the history and writing books about it have their own perspectives and point of views. Since they have their own culture and perspective, they are likely to write in a biased way. It may not seem like it, but there is a chance it could be a bit opinionated.
Max, Hyun Seok, William, Erika
What is Culture?
Culture is a way of life including different traditions, beliefs, environment, language, and lifestyle.